I was starving myself - Now I just had buttered cornbread!

Turnaround2012

I see all these threads about how many calories to eat. It is like a pattern. Someone who clearly should be eating at least 1500+ comes in and argues with the "collective" on the board about how they are going to keep eating 1000-1200 calories per day. (Yes, there are exceptions where this is the right level for some).

But, (no secret here), most of us need to be eating more.

---

I was one of those people that thought I had to A) Starve myself, Run myself into the ground in order to lose weight. I went back to two years ago (data on another site) and looked at a two week stretch where I thought I was "successful". WRONG!! :sick:

Let's dispense with the facts here: 5'7" male starting at 200+ lbs, 50 years old at the time.

If I calculate my BMR and TDEE now (thanks scooby) http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
Using: 5'7" - 189 lbs - 52 years - male - 1-3 hours light ex - 15% reduction

I get a BMR = 1740, TDEE = 2392, and 2033 Daily Cals.

---

I took a 14 day snapshot from two years ago and averaged:

Gross Cals: 1622 cals per day, Exercised for 334 cals, and netted 1288

I was netting and EATING UNDER my BMR - No wonder I was always tired, sick, and "hangry"

After that 14 days.. here is a sample of the calorie counts after I emerged from a "starving cycle" to a "pig out cycle":

7424, 3162, 4763, 5300, 3761, 4240, 4770, 5300

Can you say Big Macs, Pizza Buffets, Snickers, Cape Cod Potato chips, and Dunkin Donuts - ALL IN THE SAME DAY
I can! :drinker:

---

It took me years to wake up. When I started getting serious on MFP just a few months ago, I was still trying to eat as little as possible. I thought I was a "unique crystallization of airborne water molecules". I started reading more posts and forums:

For example: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/974889-in-place-of-a-road-map-short-n-sweet

I eat to fuel my workouts now.

---

I will let my modest numbers to the talking for July 24th, 2013 to August 23rd, 2013 - 30 days:

Weight: 192.2 - 188.4 - Slow and steady wins the race (got as low as 186.6)
Avg. Daily calories: 2368 cals
Avg. Daily Exercise; 466 cals
Avg. Daily Net: 1902 cals

As you can see I am netting (1902) right between my BMR (1740) and my TDEE (2392)

By the way I am using the MFP (My Fitness Pal) method and eating back some, but not all of my exercise calories.

---

If you are new here.. Please have an open mind and stop thinking that food is the enemy. There are a lot of great stories out here. I hope to be one of them. Not yet.. because I am still at 29% BF and my goal is 15% BF.

---

In the meantime - I just ate two cracker barrel cornbread muffins with butter and felt great about it!

Sometimes that beats going to Disneyland!

Good luck everyone!

TR

itsscottwilder

Preach!

Slow and steady. Sensible, practical, repeatable, sustainable.

Lifestyle!

Way to go!

Turnaround2012

Preach!

Slow and steady. Sensible, practical, repeatable, sustainable.

Lifestyle!

Way to go!

Thanks Man. It was really wild how the numbers actually all worked out!

joshdann

what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

people
are
not
all
the
same

most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.

egracheva

Thanks for this post!!!! I've been on here for the last 30 days and was one of those under 1200 calories/day + exercise and felt "good" about starving myself. I'm really grateful to one of my MFP palls who snapped me out of that mindset. She introduced me to TDEE and BMR calculators. I still eat a bit less calories than I need but all the additional stress of "taking one more bite" is gone. It is so much more peaceful this way!

Turnaround2012

Thanks for this post!!!! I've been on here for the last 30 days and was one of those under 1200 calories/day + exercise and felt "good" about starving myself. I'm really grateful to one of my MFP palls who snapped me out of that mindset. She introduced me to TDEE and BMR calculators. I still eat a bit less calories than I need but all the additional stress of "taking one more bite" is gone. It is so much more peaceful this way!

I like the "peaceful" quote!

Thanks! :drinker:

Turnaround2012

what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

people
are
not
all
the
same

most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.

Fair enough!

We are all different, but my "theme" was that I finally got what BMR and TDEE meant. And, now that I eat between those numbers.. I am seeing modest improvements.

I was brainwashed into thinking I had to starve myself.. I don't ever want to go through that again!

--- One thing we all can agree on --- these forums are sure interesting!

marysidneyherbert

Amen!

joshdann

so, did you have your BMR measured to come up with your TDEE? If so, how much did it cost, and where do you go to have it done? I'm looking to do the same. The online ones are so inaccurate.

Turnaround2012

I know that there are centers where you can actually have professionals measure this. I remember seeing some posts about it a while back. In the meantime I used these sites to get a general idea. The results were fairly consistent.

I was just looking for a starting point. I was reading an article somewhere where a lot of it is knowing your own body and finding out what works.

There is a group that I joined here called: Eat, Train, Progress which is really interesting: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/10118-eat-train-progress


Here are the BMR / TDEE Calcs I used:

http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/

http://weightloss.about.com/od/caloriecounting/qt/calcbmr.htm

http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/bmr/

http://www.fitnessfrog.com/calculators/tdee-calculator.html

http://www.muscleandstrength.com/tools/bmr-and-daily-calorie-calculator.html

---

I just went to various websites about ideal weight too:

http://weightloss.about.com/od/caloriecounting/qt/calcbmr.htm

http://www.calculator.net/ideal-weight-calculator.html

http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm

http://www.healthdiscovery.net/links/calculators/ideal_bw_men.htm

---

bottom line - I have a long way to go and I am just getting out of the gate!

Turnaround2012

so, did you have your BMR measured to come up with your TDEE? If so, how much did it cost, and where do you go to have it done? I'm looking to do the same. The online ones are so inaccurate.

Here are some RMR posts - This is something I will definitely look at in the future:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1079368-had-my-rmr-tested-best-au-129-i-ve-ever-spent?hl=RMR#posts-16610400

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1070860-really-frustrated-and-confused-w-my-rmr-test-results?hl=RMR#posts-16469098

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1042869-i-had-my-rmr-tested?hl=RMR#posts-16093603

joshdann

I think next week the wife and I are going to a local "weight loss center", just for the RMR calculation. I'm having good success, but she is struggling while trying to find the right diet for her. I think her BMR calculation is *way* off, especially given that she has (treated with medication) hypothyroidism. I'll be there mostly for support, but I might as well know mine, too

s_masters20

I cannot speak for other people, but 1,200 calories a day works for me. I loose weight, and I do not feel hungry. I feel like I am eating what I need, and my recent blood test done by my doctor confirm that. My body had all the nutrients it needed. That is not the right number for everyone, and it is important that everyone learn what they need to be healthy.

serendipity57

Great post OP love your thinking!

Achrya

what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

people
are
not
all
the
same

most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.

How do you reach such a conclusion? If they're losing or maintaining at whatever level then they certainly don't need to be eating any less. My goal is 1825 to lose .8 pounds a week and I'll maintained around 2200-2300, should I be eating less? Other people maintain at 3000, should they be eating less? If yes, then why?

I'm really curious about your line of reasoning.

snookumss

what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

people
are
not
all
the
same

most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.

Btw, I lost 50lbs by NOT EATING ENOUGH. I actually had losses after cheat days.... wouldnt lose whenever I really tried getting consistent in the gym. I gained back 30lbs because I'd gone really deprived so long. Now, I've got the bodymedia fit armband and I eat so much more every day 200-700 extra calories consistently compared to before every day and I lose weight consistently and easier. Yes....

I NEEDED TO EAT MORE CALORIES.

Get over yourself.

snookumss

Technically I lost (with the most frustrating plateaus throughout) 45lbs in 53 weeks, by eating 1400-1600 calories daily.

Now, I am to eat 1900 daily and have lost MORE than what I've been projected to lose.

By adding calories, I have more sanity, feel better and I'm losing weight easier.

mccbabe1

I cannot speak for other people, but 1,200 calories a day works for me. I loose weight, and I do not feel hungry. I feel like I am eating what I need, and my recent blood test done by my doctor confirm that. My body had all the nutrients it needed. That is not the right number for everyone, and it is important that everyone learn what they need to be healthy.

obviously it works for you!!! 96 pounds lost?!??!!?!? wow!!!!!!!!!!!! :drinker:

joshdann

what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

people
are
not
all
the
same

most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.

Btw, I lost 50lbs by NOT EATING ENOUGH. I actually had losses after cheat days.... wouldnt lose whenever I really tried getting consistent in the gym. I gained back 30lbs because I'd gone really deprived so long. Now, I've got the bodymedia fit armband and I eat so much more every day 200-700 extra calories consistently compared to before every day and I lose weight consistently and easier. Yes....

I NEEDED TO EAT MORE CALORIES.

no, you didn't. I get that you think you did, but you didn't. Many, many people way smarter than I am have done lots and lots of research on the subject. The resounding conclusion was that needing to eat more calories in order to lose fat is not only untrue, but counterproductive. Perpetuating the myth is a terrible idea. The only shred of truth behind it is that weak-willed individuals find it easier to maintain a smaller deficit and avoid going back to old habits. The extra calories didn't make you lose weight, they just made your life easier while you were doing it and let you stick to it more easily. It also made the weight loss take longer.

Get over yourself.

classy, bro. reeeeal classy.

joshdann

How do you reach such a conclusion? If they're losing or maintaining at whatever level then they certainly don't need to be eating any less. My goal is 1825 to lose .8 pounds a week and I'll maintained around 2200-2300, should I be eating less? Other people maintain at 3000, should they be eating less? If yes, then why?

I'm really curious about your line of reasoning.

Most of the diaries I've seen, the people are not maintaining or losing very quickly. They allow themselves unhealthy foods in small quantities in the name of "well I have to eat X calories, all the dudes on MFP say so" then end up overindulging on a regular basis. Those people need to eat less. The only people that *really* need to eat more are those who have trouble getting all of the nutrients required for a healthy body. The rest is pure psychology. Lots of people find it difficult to stay focused and ignore cravings, so they screw themselves by binging, then blame it on the high deficit.

It seems like the overwhelming majority of people on this board refuse to acknowledge the difference between something that is actually working better physically, and something that is making the effort less difficult for them. Physical versus Psychological. Eating more calories (i.e. the mythical TDEE-20%) is never, ever physically required. Science supports this.

Hey, some people also believe that cutting out gluten will make them healthier, even though they have no disease or allergy to the substance. Those people are completely incorrect... but you can throw a rock and hit hundreds of people that swear it has worked for them.

Achrya

How do you reach such a conclusion? If they're losing or maintaining at whatever level then they certainly don't need to be eating any less. My goal is 1825 to lose .8 pounds a week and I'll maintained around 2200-2300, should I be eating less? Other people maintain at 3000, should they be eating less? If yes, then why?

I'm really curious about your line of reasoning.

Most of the diaries I've seen, the people are not maintaining or losing very quickly. They allow themselves unhealthy foods in small quantities in the name of "well I have to eat X calories, all the dudes on MFP say so" then end up overindulging on a regular basis. Those people need to eat less. The only people that *really* need to eat more are those who have trouble getting all of the nutrients required for a healthy body. The rest is pure psychology. Lots of people find it difficult to stay focused and ignore cravings, so they screw themselves by binging, then blame it on the high deficit.

It seems like the overwhelming majority of people on this board refuse to acknowledge the difference between something that is actually working better physically, and something that is making the effort less difficult for them. Physical versus Psychological. Eating more calories (i.e. the mythical TDEE-20%) is never, ever physically required. Science supports this.

Hey, some people also believe that cutting out gluten will make them healthier, even though they have no disease or allergy to the substance. Those people are completely incorrect... but you can throw a rock and hit hundreds of people that swear it has worked for them.

So you're of the opinion that people should eat less for the sake of eating less, since comfort and psychological reasons aren't good enough for you. I'm not sure who you are to decide that people aren't 'losing very quickly' (I would assume they're losing at a rate that fits their needs)

Do you have some 'science' that proves a larger deficit is better or anymore physically required than a smaller deficit? I would say the only real difference is that a deficit can never be too small, as long as a person is happy with it, but a deficit can be too large, to a point where it impacts nutrition, happiness, and comfort.

People who over indulge would do it no matter their goal and that is hardly a reason to further cut their calories.

I could eat at 1200 and lose 2 pounds a week but...well, what the hell for. The joy of eating less? Lol?

joshdann

So you're of the opinion that people should eat less for the sake of eating less, since comfort and psychological reasons aren't good enough for you. I'm not sure who you are to decide that people aren't 'losing very quickly' (I would assume they're losing at a rate that fits their needs)

No, people who want to lose weight should eat at a deficit. The larger the deficit, the faster they will lose weight. There is nothing wrong with losing weight quickly, as long as exercise and proper nutrition is adhered to. The "very quickly" part of what I said is mostly based on their complaints, not my opinion. They decided they were not losing quickly, not me (in most cases). In other cases I've seen, people are not losing weight at all, or it's a pound or two per month when they have 100 or more to lose. Of course there are also lots of cases of success, I'm not discounting that... but in my experience the "average" user here is not completely happy with the results they're seeing. Or maybe that is who I have subconsciously been focusing on, I dunno. Too many times I've seen posts like "hey why am I not losing weight" and a ton of people respond "you need to eat more to lose weight". That is patently untrue in every case.

Do you have some 'science' that proves a larger deficit is better or anymore physically required than a smaller deficit? I would say the only real difference is that a deficit can never be too small, as long as a person is happy with it, but a deficit can be large, to a point where it impacts nutrition, happiness, and comfort.

do I personally have some science that proves that a larger deficit is "better"? No, I'm an engineer, not a scientist. but the internet is full of papers from people who *are* scientists. Google can turn up lots of very useful literature (peer reviewed and from actual credible resources with lots of equivalently credible references, not some bro science "weight loss" website). Also, it really depends on how you define "better". IMO breaking the pleasure relationship with food is key to long-term success. Allowing yourself a brownie once in a while sure is fun, but it also keeps your brain thinking of unhealthy food as a "reward", which in my book is a terrible idea. Not everyone wants to or is able to maintain that level of dedication, though. Thus, the religion of "you have to eat more if you want to lose weight" was born.

I also never said one should sacrifice proper nutrition. It doesn't take 2000 or even 1200 net calories to get proper nutrition, though.

I could eat at 1200 and lose 2 pounds a week but...well, what the hell for. The joy of eating less? Lol?

Joy and eating should not go together for someone who needs to lose a lot of weight. Breaking that bond is important for long-term success. Food is for fuel, not for fun. I love me some lasagna, but my body does not need it. Nobody's does. The majority of obese people got that way because of an unhealthy relationship with food. Sure, it's easier to find a way to keep that unhealthy relationship and still lose weight, but it's slower and plenty of people regress on that plan (just like with basically any other plan).

I personally like to draw the financial analogy. Let's say (hypothetically, of course) that you're financially obese. As in, lots of credit card debt and a relatively lavish lifestyle. You could opt to pay things off very slowly and still have fun... but you'll be paying for that debt for a very long time and will severaly impact your chances of ever becoming wealthy. On the other hand, you can stop partying and get rid of your fancy car, etc... living a much more stark existence for a short period of time while you pay that debt off quickly. At the end you have developed better discipline and set yourself up for a wealthy life down the road. You juat have to avoid the common pitfalls of binge spending along the way. This is exactly like eating. Do it the easy way or the hard way. How successful you are depends on you, but the hard way is almost always better in the long run.

A personal example: I was in fantastic shape after losing 85 lbs when I was 21 years old. 215 lbs at 6'6", and with the moderate amount of muscle I had at the time I was very fit, not overweight. I worked my *kitten* off to get that way, eating low calorie, high protein, low fat, and working out constantly. Then I lost my workout buddy to a cross-state move, I got lazy and made plenty of excuses, and fell out of the habit of being fit. I slowly gained that 85 lbs back over the next 8 years and then got really bad.. gaining another 50 in the 4 years following. That was *my* fault, not my "fit" diet's fault. I got lazy. Now I'm bound and determined to get as close to that shape as possible before I turn 35. To do it, I have made the conscious decision to sacrifice the pleasure that comes from things like chinese food, pizza, and chocolate cake. I'm not allowing any of those things in my life at all... and I don't crave them any more. I'm doing it the hard way, and it's working very, very well. I'm the healthiest I've been in years. I'm 50 lbs down from a year ago, 20 of that since joining MFP. I have about 85 more to go.

Yes, that is what worked for me, and of course the psychological part of it is not perfect for everyone. Physically though, if one should choose to make those sacrifices, it would work for them.

Achrya

So you're of the opinion that people should eat less for the sake of eating less, since comfort and psychological reasons aren't good enough for you. I'm not sure who you are to decide that people aren't 'losing very quickly' (I would assume they're losing at a rate that fits their needs)

No, people who want to lose weight should eat at a deficit. The larger the deficit, the faster they will lose weight. There is nothing wrong with losing weight quickly, as long as exercise and proper nutrition is adhered to. The "very quickly" part of what I said is mostly based on their complaints, not my opinion. They decided they were not losing quickly, not me (in most cases). In other cases I've seen, people are not losing weight at all, or it's a pound or two per month when they have 100 or more to lose. Of course there are also lots of cases of success, I'm not discounting that... but in my experience the "average" user here is not completely happy with the results they're seeing. Or maybe that is who I have subconsciously been focusing on, I dunno. Too many times I've seen posts like "hey why am I not losing weight" and a ton of people respond "you need to eat more to lose weight". That is patently untrue in every case.

Do you have some 'science' that proves a larger deficit is better or anymore physically required than a smaller deficit? I would say the only real difference is that a deficit can never be too small, as long as a person is happy with it, but a deficit can be large, to a point where it impacts nutrition, happiness, and comfort.

do I personally have some science that proves that a larger deficit is "better"? No, I'm an engineer, not a scientist. but the internet is full of papers from people who *are* scientists. Google can turn up lots of very useful literature (peer reviewed and from actual credible resources with lots of equivalently credible references, not some bro science "weight loss" website). Also, it really depends on how you define "better". IMO breaking the pleasure relationship with food is key to long-term success. Allowing yourself a brownie once in a while sure is fun, but it also keeps your brain thinking of unhealthy food as a "reward", which in my book is a terrible idea. Not everyone wants to or is able to maintain that level of dedication, though. Thus, the religion of "you have to eat more if you want to lose weight" was born.

I also never said one should sacrifice proper nutrition. It doesn't take 2000 or even 1200 net calories to get proper nutrition, though.

I could eat at 1200 and lose 2 pounds a week but...well, what the hell for. The joy of eating less? Lol?

Joy and eating should not go together for someone who needs to lose a lot of weight. Breaking that bond is important for long-term success. Food is for fuel, not for fun. I love me some lasagna, but my body does not need it. Nobody's does. The majority of obese people got that way because of an unhealthy relationship with food. Sure, it's easier to find a way to keep that unhealthy relationship and still lose weight, but it's slower and plenty of people regress on that plan (just like with basically any other plan).

I personally like to draw the financial analogy. Let's say (hypothetically, of course) that you're financially obese. As in, lots of credit card debt and a relatively lavish lifestyle. You could opt to pay things off very slowly and still have fun... but you'll be paying for that debt for a very long time and will severaly impact your chances of ever becoming wealthy. On the other hand, you can stop partying and get rid of your fancy car, etc... living a much more stark existence for a short period of time while you pay that debt off quickly. At the end you have developed better discipline and set yourself up for a wealthy life down the road. You juat have to avoid the common pitfalls of binge spending along the way. This is exactly like eating. Do it the easy way or the hard way. How successful you are depends on you, but the hard way is almost always better in the long run.

A personal example: I was in fantastic shape after losing 85 lbs when I was 21 years old. 215 lbs at 6'6", and with the moderate amount of muscle I had at the time I was very fit, not overweight. I worked my *kitten* off to get that way, eating low calorie, high protein, low fat, and working out constantly. Then I lost my workout buddy to a cross-state move, I got lazy and made plenty of excuses, and fell out of the habit of being fit. I slowly gained that 85 lbs back over the next 8 years and then got really bad.. gaining another 50 in the 4 years following. That was *my* fault, not my "fit" diet's fault. I got lazy. Now I'm bound and determined to get as close to that shape as possible before I turn 35. To do it, I have made the conscious decision to sacrifice the pleasure that comes from things like chinese food, pizza, and chocolate cake. I'm not allowing any of those things in my life at all... and I don't crave them any more. I'm doing it the hard way, and it's working very, very well. I'm the healthiest I've been in years. I'm 50 lbs down from a year ago, 20 of that since joining MFP. I have about 85 more to go.

Yes, that is what worked for me, and of course the psychological part of it is not perfect for everyone. Physically though, if one should choose to make those sacrifices, it would work for them.

Well its clear this will go nowhere. I believe that food is most certainly for fun and should be a joy, so it is clear there is nothing to be gained here.

Also when one makes claims using 'science' to back them up it's generally regarded as their duty to back up their claim with that science, not the duty of the other party to hit up google.

joshdann

Well its clear this will go nowhere. I believe that food is most certainly for fun and should be a joy, so it is clear there is nothing to be gained here.

Also when one makes claims using 'science' to back them up it's generally regarded as their duty to back up their claim with that science, not the duty of the other party to hit up google.

Perhaps you should start here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

Yes, you will have to click a few things for yourself, and for that I hope you will forgive me. There are lots and lots of references in that post to real, scientific data. Those references have references of their own. you could literally read for hours just by clicking through those papers.

Achrya

Well its clear this will go nowhere. I believe that food is most certainly for fun and should be a joy, so it is clear there is nothing to be gained here.

Also when one makes claims using 'science' to back them up it's generally regarded as their duty to back up their claim with that science, not the duty of the other party to hit up google.

Perhaps you should start here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

Yes, you will have to click a few things for yourself, and for that I hope you will forgive me. There are lots and lots of references in that post to real, scientific data. Those references have references of their own. you could literally read for hours just by clicking through those papers.

lol.

Just lol.

joshdann

lol.

Just lol.

you asked for scientific data, and there it is... maybe I'm missing the joke. In case you can't do the reading for yourself, either:

1) the "you must eat more calories to lose weight" concept is based primarily off of the myth of "starvation mode". That is not a real thing. Adaptive thermogenesis *is* a real thing, but it very widely misunderstood.

2) a 1200 calorie net is not the same thing as a Very Low Calorie Diet. a VLCD is more to the tune of 500 or 800 calories in a day with no exercise. A proper high deficit diet means taking in enough calories to get the nutrients you need while at the same time exercising enough to create the deficit required to lose weight quickly. 30%, 40%, even 50% for short periods of time is perfectly safe as long as you keep an eye on nutrition.

3) using exercise and proper nutrition to create a larger than 25% deficit is well known to be the most effective way to lose fat while maintaining Lean Body Mass. Of course you don't want to drop so low as to create a malnourished condition... but hopefully nobody has to be told that. Well, I'm sure some people do, so there is that.

EvgeniZyntx

IMO breaking the pleasure relationship with food is key to long-term success. Allowing yourself a brownie once in a while sure is fun, but it also keeps your brain thinking of unhealthy food as a "reward", which in my book is a terrible idea. Not everyone wants to or is able to maintain that level of dedication, though. Thus, the religion of "you have to eat more if you want to lose weight" was born.

Joy and eating should not go together for someone who needs to lose a lot of weight. Breaking that bond is important for long-term success. Food is for fuel, not for fun.

There is a lot going on in this thread, but I'm only going to start off on this.

A strategy of denial clearly works for some people - it's simple and one can build strong habits around it.
But it is certainly not necessary or important. A healthy mental relationship with food is, imo, a more successful mental long term success.

A lot of the psychological literature around motivation, in general, and specific about weight loss is about long-term practices and failure modes and how those failure modes affect us.

When barriers are so difficult that one does not have the ability to meet expectations all the time - one fails every once in a while. How do you deal with it - do you need to go through the cycle of fail, recognize, accept, strengthen resolve or is it easier to say "keep on swimming" in a less drastic mode.

I'm betting that there are no single answers and that both strategies can work with different persons. But clearly "gumption traps" and "setting one up for failure and guilt" are things that are *often* outlined as one of the reasons why too strict strategies fail.

Whatever your strategy - you need to somehow along the way assure that it is a not only transitionable to long-term practices but that those long term practices do not have a social, time, family cost that you do not find easy to meet.

I was a long-distance racing cyclist many years ago - that lifestyle was very healthy but not the reasonable commitment I wanted, so I willingly gave it up. It's not about commitment. I have the same amount of resolve I had back then but I've placed it in different buckets and priorities.

There are very few unhealthy foods - and a brownie once in a while isn't unhealthy. Thinking of it as a reward might be.
The French, as a whole, love food, appreciate the art of making and sharing and all things taste and smell. Yet historically they were not particulalry fat for the last 200 years.

I'd guess it's more about gluttony than total denial.

joshdann

perhaps instead of "unhealthy" I should have said "indulgent and calorie-dense, with little nutritional value".

Otherwise, I mostly agree with what you're saying. The only part I take exception with is the denial part. Changing my junk-food eating ways has virutally eliminated my desire for such things. I want to see another few pounds drop off this week more than I want my entertain my tastebuds for a few minutes. Of course one treat isn't going to derail a weight loss effort, but I strongly believe that mindset it a huge part of success. Choosing to view those indulgent and calorie-dense, with little nutritional value foods as things that just plain do not belong in my body is not setting myself up for failure. It might work that way for some, but that's not true for everyone.

Just like when I'm laying on the weight bench and pressing the bar up towards the ceiling... I don't *have* to do it. it's not entertaining. It's hard work. It gets results, though... so I do it. I *want* those results, so I do what it takes to get them. That's how my psychology works... I don't consider it denial, either. Sure, watching a movie would be more fun. This is more important.

Turnaround2012

From EvgeniZyntx

There are very few unhealthy foods - and a brownie once in a while isn't unhealthy. Thinking of it as a reward might be.
The French, as a whole, love food, appreciate the art of making and sharing and all things taste and smell. Yet historically they were not particulalry fat for the last 200 years.

I'd guess it's more about gluttony than total denial.

@EvgeniZyntx - That is a great summary. - Thanks!

---

The reason literally most of us are on these boards is because we want to improve our relationship with food. The majority of what I eat is unprocessed and I cook it myself:

fish, chicken, lots of raw vegetables (broccoli, carrots, kale, lettuce, celery etc.), raw almonds, egg whites, etc.

but when I am at friends, or travelling I plan ahead and I enjoy my food. When I eat pizza, or key lime pie, or some potato chips - I enjoy them and don't feel guilt because they are just part of the "new big picture".

I have finally broken the "eat really well then pig out cycle" Hopefully next month I will be able to report back and show how consistent my gross calorie intake and my subsequent net are.

---

90%-95% people on these boards are here to improve themselves. I actually like reading the "back and forth" about how many calories to eat, if it is OK to eat back exercise calories, what "clean" eating is, TDEE method vs. MFP method, lifting weights, HIIT, Paleo vs. Low carb vs. 5;2, Food as a reward, Food as fuel, and on and on.

It keeps things interesting and people who have been at this a lot longer than I have weigh in with some good information.

---

Keeping it real - I started out at 32% BF I am at 29% now - I have a long way to go. I choose to do it by losing 2-4 lbs per month and eating enough to fuel my workouts.

To everyone on this thread - Thanks for the posts - "An opinion is way better than bored indifference"!

---

With that... I got up before 6:00 today so I could go on a run.. Lacing up the running shoes in 3,2,1.....

scottaworley

what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

people
are
not
all
the
same

most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.

EDIT: Didn't see you explain yourself. I do think that most people who are eating 1200 are undereating. While this will not cause "starvation mode" wouldn't you agree that it is ideal to lose weight slowly and to eat as many calories as you can while still losing weight?

Jeneba

what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

people
are
not
all
the
same

most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.